AU YEUNG KUN AND ANOTHER v. GREENFIELD PROPERTY LTD. AND OTHERS

AU YEUNG KUN AND ANOTHER v. GREENFIELD PROPERTY LTD. AND OTHERS

The default judgment was irregular because the plaintiffs failed to prove that service brought notice to the 3rd defendant (partners) and thus the 3rd defendant was entitled to set the judgment aside without the court going into full merits; alternatively, the 3rd defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success (including potential election by plaintiffs), so the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
AU YEUNG KUN AND ANOTHER v. GREENFIELD PROPERTY LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: AU YEUNG KUN; 2nd Plaintiff: NG SOO KAM; 1st Defendant: GREENFIELD PROPERTY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: POON LAI FONG, LILY also known as LILY POON; 3rd Defendant: GREEN HOUSE PROPERTY AGENCY (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 May 2001
Case Number
HCA1024/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master Concerning Setting Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; masters order setting aside default judgment against 3rd defendant affirmed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment, Meritorious Defence, Election, Agency
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Partnership Law Default Judgment Service of Process Setting Aside Judgment Meritorious Defence Election +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AU YEUNG KUN

1st Plaintiff

NG SOO KAM

2nd Plaintiff

GREENFIELD PROPERTY LIMITED

1st Defendant

POON LAI FONG, LILY also known as LILY POON

2nd Defendant

GREEN HOUSE PROPERTY AGENCY (a firm)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master Concerning Setting Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment against the 3rd defendant was regular or irregular
  2. 2 Whether service on a partner constituted effective service on the firm given alleged cessation/dissolution
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was irregular because the plaintiffs failed to prove that service brought notice to the 3rd defendant (partners) and thus the 3rd defendant was entitled to set the judgment aside without the court going into full merits; alternatively, the 3rd defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success (including potential election by plaintiffs), so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; masters order setting aside default judgment against 3rd defendant affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Default judgment entered 9 March 2000 against the 3rd defendant set aside.